(sigh)I suppose you think Jesus Himself is a result of your yoga serpentine fantasy too, that you've invented Him or channeled Him from your great imagination or power of the spine? Sorry, janesix, but I prefer to believe the literal Truth told to us by eyewitnesses who walked with Him here on earth long ago.

I'm sorry if I offended you, janesix. Just please be careful about yoga meditation, etc.? Our minds can play tricks on us sometimes, and so can our feelings. Dabbling in New Age rituals, etc., is a maze that can be hard to extricate ourselves from.

I dont expect you to believe me,thats ok. We have polar opposite views.

Your turn will come to wake up(probably not in this incarnation) but for now i hope you enjoy your life as it is.theres nothing wrong with sleeping.its how the universe experiences life.thats the whole point.

LOL, so you would rather go with the belief that some dude waved his hands in the air and split open a sea, that people talked to bushes, that some dude literally crammed two of every one of the billions of species on the earth on an boat he hastily built himself out of wood, by hand, lol (one of EVERY species--despite not actually having access to any of the other continents or even knowing they existed--), that people turn to pillars of salt, that zombies rise from the grave and bring salvation... and so, so, so many other completely insane stories....

You are actually going to warn him that thought and reason and meditation on the wisdom of accumulated human experience to be found in the bible is more dangerous that a simple and reflexive unthinkingly blind belief that every metaphor in the reconstruction of those bronze age myths is literal truth and should be, or could be, justification for more racial cleansing, spitting on gays, or whatever else happens in the name of God when the next flareup happens?

And, for what it's worth, I already know your answer is, "Yes," but I thought I'd toss the grounds of your belief out there just because I'm bored and needed something to do.

Wow, you know the eyewitnesses? Or are you speaking of writings of supposed eyewitnesses from several thousand years ago that have been altered repeatedly by the "churches" to continue to manipulate the masses?

since the king james bible there have been many bibles written and they were not copies but translations from old texts and my point is that the newer translations did not turn out to be REwrites but they actually agree with what you called manipulated texts. Now if the king james is not drastically different from these other versions then how is this manipulated text saying the same things, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book?

You must be reading different versions of the Bible than I have. Not only has the wording changed, but the meaning has changed as well. Just as the "original" teachings of Jesus have been manipulated to manipulate the masses. Scare tactics. Live in fear! Be subjective!

They were not identical. There were variances. They were about 95% the same...And while I agree this is close enough to confirm authenticity overall that a book was written by Isaiah (or his scribe)...There is still some variances...Which could (not does) call into question if, in fact, they are completely accurate copies of the original.

The variances are simple spelling mistakes which are all counted separately, if a word is misspelt 1000 times it equals 1000 variants. In my king james the word more is, 56xs spelt moe (yes it sounds funny) so this in variant statistics equates to 56 variants - but does it damage the message of the text? - not at all.

Sometimes the mind of the scribe would play games with him and from the time of what he read to the time he copied the text, some words may have gotten out of sequence.

Variations are not as alarming as they seem and certainly no reason to mistrust the content. Isaiah is a large book - i think one scroll equaled 65 feet in length, so for a 95% correctability, thats astoundingly accurate given the primitive methods used - certainly care was taken to adhere to accuracy.

not manipulation at all. Those 4 gospels were picked because they are the best and truest of all those gospels. I have read many of those gospels and in no way can those gospels persuade me to anything other than belonging to those scam gospels written in psuedepigrapha style by authors who just stuck names on them for quick sale. Indeed, they are far far below the quality of the gospels written by the ones close to and at the time of Jesus christ himself.I have written much about the illegitimacy of those other gospels but will refrain at this time.

@brother best and true based on whose judgement?...how can 300 yrs down the line people judge what is best and true?....obviously best to suit purpose selectors intend to accomplish and truth is something which non can claim after 300 yrs ....so it is best to suit purpose of selectors and truth is irrelevant out here..

You stand in a modern day courtyard and describe courtyards from 300 yrs ago? We cannot judge the standards of then with today.

The early church did not argue over who wrote the gospels, they knew and named them thus - why did they name them thus? because they had some extra maybe cultural information or word of mouth turned colloquialism... They simply were closer to the event that we are today. In short we must stop second guessing those a mere 300 yrs away from such historic events that founded their belief and just agree.Another good point is that we do not have the gospel of peter and thomas and mary and others in the bible, obviously there were reasons sometimes we must trust simple things to just be correct. And this simple thing of naming the gospels is just one example.

You can say oh political reasons, but the word has just not opened up enough to reveal to you its flow and sober usage of communicating words and its many styles all mixed together with intricate weavers ability. Its obvious that the books all support the doctrines and the books outside the bible have doctrinal contradictions.

It is a very common mistake for many Christians to believe that the gospels are "eye-whiteness" accounts. , Jesus lived from 1 B.C.E. to around 33 C.E. The gospels featured within the bible, were written many years after the alleged death of Jesus. In fact, they were written so many years after, there is no chance that any of the authors were actually alive during the life of Jesus. The gospel of Mark was written in 70 C.E., making it first of the 4 featured within the bible, 4 decades after the death of Jesus; therefore, using liberal estimations, the author of Mark would have to had been around 70 years old to have been an eye-whiteness. The average lifespan of the time was around 29. The first writing of Jesus to emerge after his death was that of the Apostle Paul, during the 4 decade gap before the gospel of Mark was written. Paul claimed Jesus came to him in a vision, before which he knew nothing of Jesus, and commanded him to spread His word. Paul wrote over 80,000 words about Jesus, all of which completely contradict the writings of Mark. In fact, Paul does not mention: The virgin birth, any of the miracles or that Jesus was an actual earthly being. Simply said, the gospel of Mark was written completely from hearsay and was also embellished very deeply.

@shepheka i dont think majority of christians believe that gosphels are eye witness account...they know that it is not eye witness account...they also know that authors of gosphel are unknown....

coming to virgin birth , that came later....and so came many stories linked to jesus....1st century jesus and 4th century jesus are much different...christ as character evolved since death of jesus and todays christ is far from what actually 1st century christians made of christ...

30% of Americans believe the bible to be the ACTUAL word of God. 85% of America believes in a traditioal form of God.

I cannot find any data regarding eye-witness acounts polls, but I believe the number is higher than you think. ...."but I prefer to believe the literal Truth told to us by eyewitnesses who walked with Him here on earth long ago.".... Brenda Durham posted this in response to the original thread.

As far as the evolution of Christ, I attribute that to the evolution of society. As a society changes, they adapt their mythology to grow with it. The reason religion/myth does not change much anymore is because we are now in the information age, history is now less fluid.

@shepheka ."but I prefer to believe the literal Truth told to us by eyewitnesses who walked with Him here on earth long ago."?????...now that is impossible....if there are two people witnessing same event and asked after 40 yrs , both would have different versions of it....bible was never word of god...unfortunately people believe that it is word of god....bible is believed to be word of god and there is difference between believe and truth...

there where 20+ gosphels and out of them only 4 where selected...these 4 suited agendas of early church...that itself nullifies bible as being word of god...

You seem to forget that people took notes. If you think they did not then i will remind you that Jesus the christ son of the living God was speaking to them and that meant more to them than it does to you.Have you ever gone to school and not taken notes? Perhaps you did not taken notes in the classes you disliked, but in the classes you enjoyed you certainly did.Same scenario here.Now also remember that these people are versed in OT and know it thoroughly and here comes the promised messiah - thats like someone you idolize - pardon the expression hehe - and you don't remember what that person said? One day you read something (the gospel of mark) and your memory is jogged, perhaps you even go to your notes.

As we notice with the 4 gospels they are not exactly the same. They talk about the same situations but they all supplement and augment the situation with their viewpoints. They give different facts that do not contradict but enhance the gospel of mark. If i saw a train accident and someone else saw a train accident and the cops asked us.. there would not be a situation of i said there was a train accident and the other guy said there was not a train accident. I would say, i saw the trains collide head on and then i saw people getting out of the train. The other guy may say, I saw the trains hit but before they hit people were jumping out of the train.Contradiction? nope.

Regents University with a Masters of Divinity(Missiology) and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies. Currently working on a second Masters degree in Theology from Saint Leo's University. And may complete a second Doctorate in Ministry depending on a final decision of what I will be doing after I retire from the Military in a few years.. (Fulltime Minister or College Professor)

Regent's University is of course Pat Robertson's baby. The statement of faith of that university begins with: "That the Holy Bible is the inspired, infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine and precept."

How did you get a PhD from Regent's? By disagreeing with the statement of faith?

Completed a BA, wrote my letter of intent, got a letter of recommendation from two Navy Chaplains, One Catholic and One Episcopal. Applied and was accepted. Completed my Masters, enrolled and was accepted into the Doctorate Program. Completed my required courses of study, applied for and received my Degree.

The statement of faith applies to the school, student beliefs can be more varied. Besides, who said I agree or disagree with the schools statement of faith. You do realize that very few of the professors actually believe exactly like Pat Robertson. There is even an "atheist" or two, who are professors there.

Also, just as a side note, Any school that is federally funded (Public, non-private school) is not allowed to discrimate on who attends their school. As long as the entrance requirements are met, and tuition is paid, a student can attend.

Now that I know we have a real live PhD in Biblical Studies amongst us, I am resting assured said doctor of philosophy will impart some nuggets of truth to me.

So start imparting. What didn't you agree with Pat Robertson in his statement of faith about? I mean, you went there. Did you two smoke marijuana when you were doing Bible studies? I heard he wants to legalize mary jane. Martin Luther drank a whole lot of beer when conducting his Bible studies.

I believe that believability comes with more than just diplomas. Have you written any books? been on any councils? teach at any schools? Help to edit someone else's book who is well known? Made a career of biblical sharing? Been paid to present your opinion? Have extensive travel pertaining to biblical application?

To me people with bible diplomas are like artists who never sell anything - craft people. Its a complete waste of time if the holy spirit does not direct. Many people think, "okay im interested enough in the bible to take a course or 20" and they do, but this is a work of the flesh not being inspired by God and i do not think God requires anyone to have degrees, diplomas and papers to present their validity.Stay focused on God, keep in His ways, Pray often and do what the bible says and God will take you to what He wants to do with you without a problem and without a diploma.Otherwise it is all rubbish

Just a little bitter towards those who hold a degree in an area that is of your beliefs, don't ya think.

Just because beliefs vary from person to person, does not mean that the information on the "facts" are wrong with what is being taught in the schools.

The schools don't teach "faith" or "beliefs", they teach the "facts" as they are currently known in regards to the text of the bible, history of the bible, authors of the bible, history of Judaism, Christianity, and others, current doctrines, apologetics, historic culture of biblical times, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and things along these lines...Personal beliefs are not part of the curriculum. During classroom discussions various beliefs get discussed, but that is about the extent of it. Testing is based on the "Facts" taught in class. Papers, essays, disertations can be more opinion (faith) based as long as you can support what you wrote.

And with the exception of assisting someone edit their work and getting paid to speak(travel expenses excluded, I don't charge for speaking in a Spiritual or Religious setting) I have done or continue to do the rest of the things on your list...Although with being still active duty military, not as often as I would like to do.

(My opinion) I don't think people choose religion based degrees just to have one. There isn't a huge job market for those type of degrees...Minister, Professor, or Public speaker and maybe a writer...And for the price of attending college these day, those aren't the highest paying jobs to get into. I personally choose this field of study, because I felt a calling. While we may not believe the same way, God speaks to each one of us differently.

Funny how both claim to follow the same God and yet their "facts" are different...

The same can be said for a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or any of the other "Christian" faith groups...

Which is why I put the word FACTS in parentheses so that the reader would understand that testing was based on the particular class material "facts".

Personally I don't care if you agree with me or not...I am not concerned with where I am heading, nor do I need to convince others that I am right and all others are wrong...

Have a good day...And maybe one day you will decide to actually learn something of your religion and deepen your faith, because more often than not, the atheists on these threads make most of the believers look really bad...But of course, from your postings, I'll not be holding my breath...

I am not argueing with the point that you are making here but simply adding to that which you said.

It doesn't matter who is right or wrong when any compulsive and experienced debater enters into any discussion they can soon bring the exchange of ideas to a halt by doing what you just described. By averting the focus of debate, thereby making the oposition apear silly.

When it doesn't matter what the truth is, when winning the debate is the only objective, Ya do what you are (think) you are suposed to do; win.

I have often seen threads qhich were being carried out as we should hope that they would. And before it could come to a climatic end ... someone would come in, either a chronic bebater or an extreem fundamentalist to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation. I sometimes think that this was the only objective of the person throwing in the wrench. I think it would be SOooo kool if someone who had the time and inteligence to do so, would go back through these particular threads and bring them to some kind of conclusion.

You are very mistaken; First and foremost, I am not biased to one side or the other. I have spent many years of my life weighing the evidence for each side but what I have come to realize is the fact that the religious side has almost no evidence. In the event that undeniable evidence supporting religion was produced, I would have no problem changing my position.

The dates and events mentioned in my previous post are not opinions, they are indeed facts. The biggest problem is not the facts the way they are interpreted. People who wish to believe will find a way to believe.

You are completely wrong on what i must call your assumptions.The gospels were written within the lifetimes of those that followed christ meaning his disciples and those that were taught by his disciples and those that were witnesses to the resurrected christ - remember christ visited over 500 people before his ascension. 1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1 corinthians is written about 55 ad so at this time there are those who are alive and witnesses.

but lets deal with your high date for the book of mark.Acts ends with Paul being held in jail in rome, therefore paul is not dead, Paul died in 68ad, even if we go as high as 72 ad we must notice that acts was written before that date. Now we also know that luke wrote both the gospel of luke and acts and that acts is a continuation of luke, so luke was written before acts and before pauls death. We also know that luke used marks gospel when writing lukes gospel - so you can see the date for marks gospel easily is lesser than 70ad and puts marks and other gospels well within 30ish years after jesus death - which compared to other literary works of antiquity is a news flash! delivered by Reuters.

The gospel of mark comes from eyewitness peter, this is a fact and hearsay as yousay does not enter the picture.

The idea that you know what paul has to mention in order for truth to emerge is what i call, alarming. Paul never contradicts any christian guideline that either jesus or the OT mention. Recall that Paul was sent to the gentiles - whether you want to dispute this or not is irrelevant to me - but the gentiles do actually have different practicalities than the jews did. The jews were under the law, the gentiles had no law, Christ came to free people from the law and bring grace and forgiveness to all people - equally, therefore, since the letter of the law and the horrible way the jews mistreated the law and created new laws were done away with - replaced by the true spirit of the law - the gentiles who knew not the law needed to know what is up. The law was never placed upon the gentiles and should neither have been given them to bear.

Your argument fails to do anything more than to prove the point I made ealier: There is NO evidence, outside of the Bible, to prove the life of Jesus. The Bible my be all the proof you need; however, for myself and many others we demand actual historical evidence.

You stand on the proof (the earth).You see the proof (the reality of life and death).You live the proof (you are alive, yet with no explanation of how humans came into being except at the hand of a Creator).You have access to reading the proof (the Holy Bible).

Instead of seeing the proof that's all around you, you search for something that isn't there (literal denunciation of rational conclusion).

Of course. Proof of the intelligent design (a Creator). Surely you don't think the flow of nature including plant life and animal life, the waters on the earth which sustains life, the dominance of human intelligence over animal intelligence, the whole system of life on this planet, is something that just happened at random from some microscopic bit of indeterminate nothing, do you?

And this has what to do with Jesus? Sorry you don't understand basic biology and there needs to be majik involved, but I don't see how a total lack of evidence for this person wot sed not to get a divorce has any bearing on that.

We were talking about creation. God's the Creator. The Bible tells us that Jesus was God in the flesh, the earthly manifestation of the same God. So the connection.So when you asked about the earth being proof of Jesus, there's the connection.

BTW, I don't have a horse, high or low, and don't know how to ride one. I was rather enjoying the renewed talks with you, but your straying from the subject is startin' to take all the fun out of it.

That depends on how reality is discovered. In my experience, i know far more now than i did when i first became a christian. My knowledge is deeper, loose ends got cleared up and God has shown and proven himself to me more often than i can count.So to all those who want to have all the answers before they repent and be saved, i say, the deeper i get in christ, the bigger He becomes.

the spirit that discerns them is the spirit of God and not some other way. Meditation biblically does not mean we empty our minds and repeat some tantrum (lol) but it does mean we think about what the bible is saying. We mull it over.

Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Romans 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

See no serpentine thingy needed or third eye or rummaging through books that promise deep spiritual insights. Gods ways are simple and available to all. No special degree or masters of the universe playing card needed.

If i could put it into words i would.when you have a direct experience, there is no logic involved.it is unexplainable.the closest i can come is that you get a sense of the underlying order of everything. Among other things.

I completely agree i am not being logical.that doesnt mean i am not thinking.

I know i am very much alone in my views.thats why i discuss it in an annonymous forum.

That's fine, but if that's the case, making claims that "There is much more in this world than science can explain" is rather dishonest considering science IS based on evidence and not personal belief.

prove that the bible is a failed attempt to explain the world around them and i am betting you find a God not linked to natural events as an explanation of them at all but you find a God who is concerned with sin and not attached to fertility rites or the passing of seasons.

First of all I really don't know if people in this hub want a sincere discussion or are here for simply to pass their time. Those who are here to simply while away their time are really showing the degree of morality by spitting out some nonsense that comes to their mind. These are the ones who many a time gives out one word or one phrase uninformative posts. I really wish this website was usefully used.

To those who are here for sincere discussion here are some information.

There are evidences that Jesus Christ was a real person who walked on this planet.

1. There are historic writings that indicate these truths. 2. The gospels are not mere stories but mentions specific personalities and places that existed during that time. 3. Jesus was born around 4 B.C. and lived for around 33 years. That places his death around 30 A.D. The first Gospel (by Mark) was written around 70 A.D. That is just 40 years later. Many close associates of Jesus would still have been living at that time. So Mark could not have paraded with his incorrect stories. 4. What books would become a part of the Bible was not decided some crook who was biased towards some belief. Gospels that had clear indication that they were inspired works (which was based taking into account various parameters) were only select to be a part of the Bible.

I have question for those who talk about enlightenment, kundalini and all the new age stuff. What is the basis for your stuff? What is the evidence that what you are saying is true?

3. Jesus was born around 4 B.C. and lived for around 33 years. That places his death around 30 A.D. The first Gospel (by Mark) was written around 70 A.D. That is just 40 years later. Many close associates of Jesus would still have been living at that time. So Mark could not have paraded with his incorrect stories.

mark could not is assumption...considering assumption is true...no one knows who was mark...now supposingly mark took interview of eyewitnesses ....if u ask two people witnessing same thing even 1 yr back there would be lot of difference in their versions..

lets assume jesus was god sent person...if he was , he should have known that his words are so very important....why didnt he himself wrote them down then?...why wait for some unknown mark to write after 40 yrs?.....4. What books would become a part of the Bible was not decided some crook who was biased towards some belief. Gospels that had clear indication that they were inspired works (which was based taking into account various parameters) were only select to be a part of the Bible.

bible was standardized after 300 yrs....now after 300 yrs who can decide with authority what is authentic and what is not....it is simple those who selected 4 gosphels believed that what they are selecting are authentic version and as per their own set of perception of authenticity promoted those versions....none can claim that their version is 100% authentic...they floated things which suited their own agendas...now agenda might be good ...nothing to take away from these people regarding that...but good intentions never mean what they marketed was , what is was....

I have question for those who talk about enlightenment, kundalini and all the new age stuff. What is the basis for your stuff? What is the evidence that what you are saying is true?

yoga and kundalini are not new age stuff...they are much older than even torah ...bible ,quran are pretty new book in comparison....yes evidence of what topic starter claimed can be asked for...

Not if the event was of at most importance to them. Many scholars say that Mark had taken the information down from Peter. If that is the case Peter would not have forgotten anything because he was continuously teaching about Jesus to everyone. Also the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was there on the writers to guide them in their writing.

I apologize for the error in my previous post. I did intend to say 70 C.E.; however, I obviously did not proof read well enough.

The bible simply cannot be used to prove itself. It is a book, written by countless unknown and unverified authors. Though some of the events within can be historical verified more cannot. The bible consist of 4 gospels, the first written 40 years after the fact and the next three written FROM the first; There is absolutely no credibility. If you wish to prove Jesus HISTORICLY you must do it outside of the Bible-including any of the gospels that did not make the cut. To date, there is NO such proof which brings me to the underlying problem. The standards used to judge the historical actuality of Jesus are lower than that of anyone (or thing) else in history; People accept without proof simply because they want to believe.

The bible simply can be used to prove itself. It is a book, written by around 40 authors. Though some of the events within can not be historical verified more can. The bible consist of 4 gospels, the first written 40 years after the fact and the next three written later on by different authors for different people. There is absolute credibility. If you wish to prove Jesus HISTORICLY you can do it from the Bible - excluding any of the gospels that did not make the cut. The standards used to judge the historical actuality of Jesus are higher than that of anyone (or thing) else in history; People accept with proof simply because they do not want to believe blindly.

You simply have not done sincere unbiased study. You just don't want to believe that Jesus existed.

if mark took from peter , why gospel of peter itself was rejected?...it is simple selectors chose what suited their agenda...secondly who is this mark?...any historical details about him...when was he born , where did he live, what did he do....whom he interviewed to write gospel?....what was his criteria?....holy spirit is too naive term to say oh i am inspired and what i wrote is divine...who verified whether mark was inspired or not?....do we have record about people who backed claims of holy spirit?...what where their names?...what did they do?...tomorrow xyz can come and write and say hey holy spirit inspired me ...would u belief xyz then?....

Your argument is completely flawed. The only historic item that mentions anything about Jesus is the Bible, there is literally NOTHING else. I think that any rational person would agree that the Bible itself cannot be used as proof. As getitrite said, any fictional story can be based on actual persons and places, a few good examples are The Odyssey and The Iliad; surely you do not claim that Hercules was a real perso, born of Zeus? You are correct in your dates about the birth and death of Jesus; however, anyone alive and old enough to actually have witnessed or been part of his life would have been much too old to be alive around 120 C. E. (gospel of Mark). The average life span of the time was 29...You also mention that the 4 books chosen to be put into the Bible were the most correct and inspired, but what of the 80,000 words written by the apostle Paul. Paul wrote and taught about Jesus during the 40 year gap before the book of Mark was written. Paul's story of Jesus mentioned NOTHING of a virgin birth, any miracles and he implied that Jesus was never actually an earthy figure.You speak of ill of other people's morality, but I challenge you to take a closer look at your own. I challenge you to remove faith from the equation and truly study the evidence. You might be surprised at the implications you find.

There are other historic writings that do talk about Jesus. You just have to do better research. Also the Bible itself can be used as proof simply because is not just on book. Its many books compiled together. Therefore if one book says something it can be verified by other books. Also the there are writings in the old testament that would verify the claims of the new testament.

It very easy to sit around and say this is wrong and that is wrong without doing proper study. The truth will remain unchanged whatever you say or believe.

Gospel of Mark was written around 70 AD and not 120 AD

What if I make the same challenge to you? You assume that I took faith before studying.

translated from old documents no one disputes that the words they read in these also ancient texts is false. No one questions the validity of their statement but the bible gets full scrutiny - why?

Your date for marks gospel is outrageously high. 50-60 is wider more accepted date, based on the ending of acts with paul in jail not dead yet so the book of luke is written prior to acts taken from mark, mark has to be younger than 65ad.

Jesus mentioned NOTHING of a virgin birth, any miracles

Paul doesn't have to explain these things. These are early information that is readily known throughout jewdom first and then into the church. Paul is talking to the gentile nations and the gentiles aren't really up on Jewish history, what they like are facts, get to the point please Paul and Paul treats them this way.

Why should a religious figure have a place in secular history, which is does as a secondary event through pliny and others, but, why would when speaking of roman society and historic events would any religious movement be given loads of attention?

Do we read of sung moon when we look into history of the 60's?Do we frequently encounter menonites when studying the occupation of canada? When i pick up the paper today are there any religions taking up space on the first page or other pages? So why do we require it here?When buddha walked why do we not have secular evidence of his journey?

With the "out of this world" claims that believers make concerning their gods, it would seem absolutely impossible for them to sneak right under the radar of World History, unless, of course they are myths.

Funny how believers are intellectually dishonest with their definitions of intellectual dishonesty.

"Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary."

A quick answer to this statement. Ya gotta remember that These are not books that they published.

These were just a few letters that they had written to each orher or to somebody .. out of; who knows ? how many were written. These particular letters were adressed to certain people that can be documented a date that "it" was probably written.

there where 20+ gosphels and out of them only 4 where selected...these 4 suited agendas of early church...that itself nullifies bible as being word of god...

=========================== I'm sure that the desiples wrote multitudes and bunches of letters. And that this small number of writings is all that survived almost 300 years until some of these were chosen to establish their Church upon.

All that I get from this is that the bible is only a small part of the word of God.

these 20 odd gospels are NOT written by disciples, they are pseudepigrapha:are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded; a work, simply, "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past." For instance, few Hebrew scholars would ascribe the Book of Enoch to the prophet Enoch.

Why deny Jesus existed if you don't believe in God? Do you also deny that the Holocaust happened? Same logic. You are like the bad guy in "The Book Of Eli" trying to read the braille bible. That guy was Jack Nicholson. Ever hear of Jack?

What anyone says or believes has nothing to do with that. I don't care what irrational believers believe. I already know why they need to believe such things. I don't care that some people say the holocaust never happened. That has no bearing on whether or not they are true.

I already know that people will lie both to themselves and others in order to defend their beliefs. Particularly irrational religious beliefs.

Related Discussions

Okay, I've really taken an interest in the forums for the last few days as I need something to keep my mind off of something. I've noticed a few things and came up with a few theories on HubPages groupthink. Thought it be fun to test them out, so here goes:I, technically, am a Unitarian...

.......in terms of behaviours and activities?I've just read a hub by someone talking about the old Chestnut that not all who call themselves Christian are going to heaven citing Jesus "Not all who cry Lord will enter the Kingdom......." I suppose this is connected to Emile's OP asking why...

Adam and Eve - Truth or Myth?Do you believe Adam and Eve are real people or allegorical figures. If they are physically true, why or how do you know, and if allegorical, what is the meaning or purpose of the story?

Tell me why you don't believe in God or the devil?What is your logic behind your belief that people of faith or those who believe in good/evil forces believe in the absurd? I am interested in the system of logic that you are using and would like to compare it to the most highly respected...

The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.1.) Sources for arguments of fact need to be cited. There are exceptions to this rule if...

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)